Abstract
Abstract Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence for decision making in health care issues. One of the first steps of a SR involves identifying all relevant clinical trials on the topic of interest. However, the retrieval of clinical trials in a database partially depends on the article indexing quality. The aim of this article is to evaluate the adequacy of indexing of clinical trials as a publication type in the LILACS database in a sample of articles published in cardiology journals. This cross-sectional study analyzed the indexing quality of clinical trials published between 2008 and 2009 in cardiology journals indexed in LILACS. Two independent reviewers identified and reclassified all original studies published in these journals as being clinical trials or other types of studies. The result of their classification was compared with the indexing publication type produced by LILACS. A total of 721 articles published in 11 cardiology journals were included. The reviewers classified 63 articles as clinical trials; 44 of these were correctly indexed in LILACS, while 19 were indexed as other types of studies (false negatives). The reviewers classified 658 articles as non-clinical trials; 651 were correctly indexed and 7 were incorrectly indexed in LILACS as being clinical trials (false positives). The sensitivity, specificity and global accuracy of LILACS indexing were 69.8%, 98.9% and 96.4% (695/721), respectively. Almost one third of the clinical trials published in LILACS-indexed Cardiology journals are not adequately indexed. The indexing quality of the studies published in these journals must be improved.
Highlights
Introduction aSystematic Reviews (SR) (GLANVILLE et al, 2006; LEFEBVRE, 2008; TALJAARD et al, 2010).Access to health information is essential for those involved in evidence-based research, management and decision-making (COHN et al, 2005; NEUMANN; RADA, 2014)
We indicate where (Title, Objective, Methods or Results) we found a clear description of the study design and the Clinical Trials (CT) subtype in the article
We obtained the electronic version of all articles of each eligible journal and screened the titles and abstracts to exclude clearly irrelevant articles
Summary
Access to health information is essential for those involved in evidence-based research, management and decision-making (COHN et al, 2005; NEUMANN; RADA, 2014). Systematic Reviews (SR) are considered the best source of evidence for making health care decisions, especially in the area of treatment. CT are primary studies that prospectively allocate individuals to different intervention groups and assess the effects of these interventions on health outcomes. Interventions may be surgical or radiological procedures, behavioral therapies or preventive care (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2014). The primary purpose of a CT is to clarify what is the best intervention for a specific health problem. CT are an essential part of any SR on health care (COOK et al, 1995; DICKERSIN et al, 1994; FORREST; MILLER, 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
